Democracy in the age of data
By Amit Kapoor
"Data is the new oil" has been a clichéd maxim of the internet age. But the events that unfolded last week have underlined the extent of complexities that can be created in society depending on the nature of its usage.
A year-long investigation by multiple media outlets in the US and Britain revealed that a consulting firm, Cambridge Analytica, accessed data of at least 50 million social media users without their proper consent. They then used these data points to psychologically profile people and individually target them with politically-motivated content to manipulate the 2016 US presidential elections. A similar approach was used to influence electoral outcomes all around the world, possibly even in India.
Even though the process of manipulating the political narrative during elections is not something new, there is something sinister about for-profit organisations and foreign agents using data technologies to disrupt democratic norms. If electoral outcomes come to be defined by exploiting deep-rooted psychological fears of voters based on data analytics instead of developmental issues that drive progress and prosperity, social cohesion will fall under immediate threat, proving pernicious to the very fabric of democracy. The political vision of governments and politicians need to be steered by people instead of mathematical algorithms.
It must be highlighted that social media and the vast explosion of data due to it are not the problems per se. However, when societies are finding themselves being increasingly run by data, a defined set of ethical norms need to be formulated to guide its use. The issue is of the utmost importance for India, as it has a significant online presence that is vulnerable to privacy violations. It has the highest number of Facebook users and the second-highest number of Twitter users in the world -- with a combined reach of almost 300 million.
A committee of experts under Justice B.N. Srikrishna has already been set up to deliberate upon a data protection framework for India. It is working on drafting a data protection bill and has deliberated on a number of pertinent issues like what constitutes "personal data", the specifications of consent and establishment of a data protection authority. A white paper has also been published by the authority, detailing a lengthy discourse on these very issues. Meanwhile, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information Technology has also listed "Citizens' data security and privacy" as a subject of study. However, not much seems to have been done on the topic. Recent events might hopefully set the ball rolling on that front and inspire a multi-partisan report on the matter.
Once the processes of setting up a robust framework of regulatory policy and statutory law to govern matters of data privacy are complete, there will be a requirement to establish cultural expectations that incorporate ethical standards right when the data technologies are being built. The application of regulatory mechanisms after individuals have been profiled is akin to closing the stable doors after the horses have bolted. The race to become the next-big-thing in technology has placed ethics on the backseat and, hence, it is often the case that investigations are conducted, and apologies are demanded, only after the damage has been done. The environment of "develop first, question later" will have to change.
The issue of data and privacy regulations will become even more important as technological companies gain greater market share in provision of financial services instead of traditional banks. When you instantly transfer money to friends and family over apps like WhatsApp to avoid the hassle of asking around for bank account numbers, the company gains direct access to your transactions. The power of that data will lie with the entity which posses it. Interestingly, retail banks will begin to lose out on this essential oil as it will be unable to identify customer interactions once it shifts to these new age non-banks.
The use of data mining as a strategic tool, put in the right hands, can be a powerful tool to understand societal preferences and address consumer needs. However, no good comes with a complementing bad and our democratic societies need to be wary of the latter by building robust security mechanisms that ensure privacy and consent. At times, even that might not be enough. Consumers willingly hand over a lot of personal information for the convenience of services without knowledge of the consequences of their actions and the eventual use of the data. Therefore, a final action that needs to be undertaken in the world of data is to build user-awareness. There is simply no substitute to a well-informed consumer base.
(Amit Kapoor is chair, Institute for Competitiveness. The views expressed are personal. He can be contacted at amit.kapoor@competitiveness.in and tweets @kautiliya. Chirag Yadav, senior researcher, Institute for Competitiveness, has contributed to the article)
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
US spies said Iran wasn't building nuclear weapon. Trump dismisses that assessment
Washington, Jun 17 (AP): Tulsi Gabbard left no doubt when she testified to Congress about Iran's nuclear programme earlier this year.
The country was not building a nuclear weapon, the national intelligence director told lawmakers, and its supreme leader had not reauthorised the dormant programme.
But President Donald Trump dismissed the assessment of US spy agencies during an overnight flight back to Washington as he cut short his trip to the Group of Seven (G7) summit to focus on the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran.
“I don't care what she said,” Trump told reporters. In his view, Iran was “very close” to having a nuclear bomb.
Trump's statement aligned him with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has described a nuclear-armed Iran as an imminent threat, rather than with his own top intelligence adviser.
The Republican president was expected to meet with national security officials in the Situation Room on Tuesday as he plans next steps.
Trump's contradiction of Gabbard echoed his feuds with US spy leaders during his first term, when he viewed them as part of a “deep state” that was undermining his agenda. Most notably, he sided with Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2018 when asked if Moscow had interfered in the 2016 election, saying Putin was “extremely strong and powerful in his denial.”
The latest break over Iran was striking because Trump has staffed his second administration with loyalists rather than establishment figures. Gabbard, a military veteran and former Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii, was narrowly confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate because of her scant experience with intelligence or managing sprawling organisations.
Gabbard, who left the Democratic Party in 2022 and endorsed Trump, is expected to testify Tuesday in a closed session on Capitol Hill, along with CIA Director John Ratcliffe, during a previously scheduled budget hearing. Both officials would likely face questions about their views on Iran and Trump's latest statements.
Representatives for Gabbard and the CIA did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Gabbard, in her March testimony to lawmakers, said the intelligence community was closely monitoring Iran's nuclear programme, noting that its “enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons.”
The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly warned that Iran has enough enriched uranium to make several nuclear bombs should it choose to do so.
Iran maintains its nuclear programme is peaceful.
An earlier intelligence report, released in November under then-President Joe Biden, a Democrat, also said Iran “is not building a nuclear weapon.”
However, it said the country has “undertaken activities that better position it to produce one, if it so chooses,” such as increasing stockpiles of enriched uranium and operating more advanced centrifuges.
The report did not include any estimates for a timeline for how quickly a bomb could be built.
Trump's immigration agenda is another place where he's split with intelligence assessments. He cited the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 wartime law, to deport Venezuelan migrants, which he justified by claiming that the Tren de Aragua gang was coordinating with the Venezuelan government. However, an intelligence assessment in April found no evidence of that.
Gabbard fired the two veteran intelligence officers who led the panel that created the assessment, saying they were terminated because of their opposition to Trump.
In response to those reports, the White House released a statement from Gabbard supporting the president.
“President Trump took necessary and historic action to safeguard our nation when he deported these violent Tren de Aragua terrorists,” the statement said. “Now that America is safer without these terrorists in our cities, deep state actors have resorted to using their propaganda arm to attack the President's successful policies.”
